Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When was the first time Tank has been used in desert combat? World War 1? Rif wars (Also the fast tank experiment), or the Italian colonial wars against British Empire?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbWXpngG_cU

Is this tank combat Canon?

Why desert is so special?

Why? dusty places. soft ground, vastness.

And it was 1917, where tanks were desgined by the concepts of modern Helepolis. and the speeds were not faster than walking.

We talking about mechanized/armored combat in a Combat Theater? Afrika Corp vs British

British versus Italian in the Western Desert in WW2 was before Afrika Korps. They had to be sent over by Germany because the Italians were doing so badly.

From what I can tell, in WWI British tanks were only used in France, and Palestine, with only 8 Mk. Is to begin with, and then a small handful of Mk. IVs around the Third Battle of Gaza.

Apparently, "they worked well in sand so long as the treads were not greased, which was the normal practice".

Of the 8 Mk. Is in the Second Battle of Gaza, only 2 of them managed to reach their objective, and displayed exactly why using your own tanks as cover is actually a terrible move, as the low number of tanks drew a lot of fire and subsequently the infantry advancing behind and alongside them also took a lot of fire.

The first predominantly tank-on-tank combat in desert-type terrain would almost certainly have been during Italy's first offensives against the British holdings in Africa.

there were a few tanks (part of the british forces supporting the whites against the reds) used in post revolution Russia but I don't think any were in 'desert' conditions

the Italians used tanks against the Ethiopians in 1935/36

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Italo-Ethiopian_War

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
there were a few tanks (part of the british forces supporting the whites against the reds) used in post revolution Russia but I don't think any were in 'desert' conditions

Yeah. Thanks for that. They make great monuments:


The British also used tanks in the Battle of Gaza in 1917:

I think that is the first time they were used in arid environment (Gaza is not really a desert I think).

Both the British and the French sent tanks to Russia, their forces were based at Archangel and in the Ukraine so no desert fighting.

As for the video, there were tanks allocated to the three British infantry divisions (four to the 52nd and two each to the 53rd and the 54th) at the Second Battle of Gaza on the 17th of April 1917. The video is set on the last day if this battle (19th April). If Avatar 720 is correct and they were Mk Is then they're the wrong tank in the video as they look like Mk IVs.

The Mk. IV went into production in May 1917, so definitely did not see use at the Second Battle of Gaza. From what I can find, the replicas used in the video were just that, scale replicas made of wood using a surviving Mk. IV residing in Australia as reference. Apparently inside were 4 or so 'crewmen' and the tank was towed via cable.

Given that the only surviving Mk. I is in the Bovington Tank Museum, on the other side of the world from where the film was made, I guess it's reasonable to expect them to use what they had, instead of trying to build replicas in Britain and ship them over to Australia, or trying to get as many measurements as possible and then trying to build it as well as possible.

I doubt many cinema-goers would notice the error, anyway; I certainly wouldn't have if I hadn't looked into it. I'm not all that clued-up on WWI.

However, if we are talking about tank versus tank, I think it did not happen until WW2.

The Red Russians, the Ottomans and the Ethiopians didn't have tanks, as far as I know. They may have had some armoured cars.

The Ethiopians did have a few vintage light tanks (Fiat 3000s),

but I don't think they actually met any of the Italian ones in combat

http://www.alternativefinland.com/italian-tanks-interwar-decades/

it also mentions Italian tanks were used in Libya in the interwar years 1926 on (but did not face any mechanised opposition)

What about the war between China and Japan in the 1930s? Might have been some tank V tan combat in that, or even during the Spanish civil war. I'm sure Spain has a desert.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Red Russians, the Ottomans and the Ethiopians didn't have tanks, as far as I know. They may have had some armoured cars.

The Bolsheviks had quite a few tanks British and French tanks (MK Vs, Whippets and FTs) that they liberated from their interventionist opponents.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Red Russians, the Ottomans and the Ethiopians didn't have tanks, as far as I know. They may have had some armoured cars.

The Bolsheviks had quite a few tanks British and French tanks (MK Vs, Whippets and FTs) that they liberated from their interventionist opponents.

Yet there were more FT17s owned by both sides, and the brits seems to like them too.

What were the Interventionists motives? did they have the same goal as the Coalitions in the French Revolutionary War? (to restore ousted monarchy to the throne and to stop the revolutionary threat, In case of French Revolution the Coalitions (Brits, Austrians and Prussians were big members) aimed to restore Bourbons , What about this Red war? did the Interventionists (Brits, French, Americans, and ..... Japanese) aimed to restore Romanov? (or did the Japs have other ulterior moves in mind... Siberian conquest)

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Red Russians, the Ottomans and the Ethiopians didn't have tanks, as far as I know. They may have had some armoured cars.

The Bolsheviks had quite a few tanks British and French tanks (MK Vs, Whippets and FTs) that they liberated from their interventionist opponents.

It would be useful to get some numbers. The Ethiopians, for example, apparently had only three light tanks. It is not clear that they ever got into combat with the Italians. If they did, would it be considered a battle?

The idea of a battle usually means a reasonably large number of troops and vehicles are involved.

Numbers are relative. The first tank on tank action was between half a dozen tanks However the Germans only ever put fifteen of their tanks into combat in WWI. In 1920 the Bolsheviks had at least eight detachments of three to four (24 to 32) captured British tanks and a 'Division' of ten captured FTs. It's possible that some of these also fought the Poles who were equipped with FTs.

@Avatar 720: It's pretty easy to spot the difference between a MKI and an MKIV. The former has two huge 'wagon' wheels at the rear for steering.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Numbers are relative. The first tank on tank action was between half a dozen tanks However the Germans only ever put fifteen of their tanks into combat in WWI. In 1920 the Bolsheviks had at least eight detachments of three to four (24 to 32) captured British tanks and a 'Division' of ten captured FTs. It's possible that some of these also fought the Poles who were equipped with FTs.

@Avatar 720: It's pretty easy to spot the difference between a MKI and an MKIV. The former has two huge 'wagon' wheels at the rear for steering.

If you can call the German A7V a tank, it was a barely moving nightmare. They were quite good at capturing and using British tanks however.

 Lone Cat wrote:
What were the Interventionists motives? did they have the same goal as the Coalitions in the French Revolutionary War? (to restore ousted monarchy to the throne and to stop the revolutionary threat, In case of French Revolution the Coalitions (Brits, Austrians and Prussians were big members) aimed to restore Bourbons , What about this Red war? did the Interventionists (Brits, French, Americans, and ..... Japanese) aimed to restore Romanov? (or did the Japs have other ulterior moves in mind... Siberian conquest)

That's quite a big question. Broadly speaking the interventionists initially desired Russia to stay in the war and to become a democracy under the 'Green' Provisional government set-up after the February revolution. Except Japan which wanted to expand its empire. No group wanted the Romanovs back particularly (including the Whites) as they'd been almost completely discredited by the war (WWI). The interventionists were at different times willing to deal with any side that would help them achieve their aims, of which the most important was keep Russia in the war against the Central powers.

@ welshhoppo: We're calling the CV33 a tank in this thread, why the hell not the A7V? Agreed the A&V is an awful vehicle.

At Least the CV33 looks like a tank. The A7V is just a walking disaster. It's almost like calling the Tsar Tanka a tank.

To be fair, everyone was playing catch-up with the British until the mid-1930s.

The British army didn't buy what was arguably the best tank of the period despite it being British designed and built.



It was still influencing tank design a decade after its introduction and in one form or another fought in the armies of several countries.

Ah the Vickers 6 tonne? Very good tank.


Having studied tanks during my degree, I can say I'm not surprised at all. The British really didn't seem to like the idea of tanks after ww1. Luckily Guderian was paying close attention to the whole situation.

Luckily for the Germans that is.

You might be surprised. The British Army was at the forefront of tactical development of tank warfare, including radio control and integration with other arms, during the 20s and early 30s. Many new concepts were trialled.

Guderian got all his best ideas from Liddell-Hart.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You might be surprised. The British Army was at the forefront of tactical development of tank warfare, including radio control and integration with other arms, during the 20s and early 30s. Many new concepts were trialled.

Guderian got all his best ideas from Liddell-Hart.

That's what Liddell-Hart wanted you to think, he was mostly a journalist who stole ideas from JFC Fuller and pretended they were his, he was all flash and no trousers.

Liddel-Hart's mention in Achtung Panzer was supposedly put there as a favour by Guderian. Fuller was a crank and a fascist who was sufficiently politically suspect during WWII that he wasn't brought back into the army. It's not surprising that his role has been diminished.

Something in back of my mind keeps signaling track width with UK and German tanks.

 George Spiggott wrote:
The British army didn't buy what was arguably the best tank of the period despite it being British designed and built.



It was still influencing tank design a decade after its introduction and in one form or another fought in the armies of several countries.

Siam was one if the BIG customers of this (Shortly before the 1932 Revolution.. which replaced the Absolute Monarchy with the proto-democracy government). First used in the short civil war between the Revolutionary government and the Restorationary led by a blueblood, later against the Indochine Francais in the late 1941 somewhere in the present-day Cambodia. (Not really the first Tank VS Tank combat, and not sure if it was ANY because it is said that the Indochine Francaisse has some FT17 and nothing newer)
This vehicle is classified as 'light tank'. for many countries (on many occasions), this thing (along with its copies, and derivatives) were MBT of that time.... The Italians built the Medium tank derivatives, while the Japs might have been copied this as well. yet I'm not sure if the U.S. Army bought a handful of this thing to make a tank design of their own but the copies led to the evolution paths of WW2 American tanks.

Thailand drives on the left, like the UK and Japan, so it made sense to buy British tanks.

The basic format of the tank is the same as the early Renault. The reason why the British didn't build turretted tanks in WW1 was that they needed to reserve their turret ring manufacturing capacity for naval use.

 Jihadin wrote:
Something in back of my mind keeps signaling track width with UK and German tanks.

I know that British tanks were designed to be able to go on rail transport with the minimum of fuss, which was a big drawback when they designed the Churchill tank, as it was too narrow or something like that.